Search results

More than 10 years after its founding, the STEM Women of Color Conclave® has emerged as the largest safe brave space in the United States for women faculty of color in the academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Originally intended to be a national assembly, the Conclave® has evolved into a safe brave space that serves as a refuge for STEM women faculty of color who are regularly taxed with the struggle of having to navigate the unwelcoming, and often hostile, environments of the ivory tower in very unique ways. This chapter narrates how the Conclave's founding members journeyed toward creating and sustaining this safe brave space. The reader is awakened to deeper awareness of and sensitivities for the ways in which safe brave spaces must address both the complexities related to struggle – and liberation from that struggle – for both occupiers and observers of safe brave spaces. However, just as the quantum observer can disturb the system just by observing it and, ultimately, change or even nullify the results, we recognize that merely observing the Conclave® would nullify its intended purpose and, in the end, render it unsafe. Therefore, the reader can anticipate an absence of direct observations, reports of outcomes, or specific accounts of progress related to the occupiers of our safe brave space. Rather, the chapter offers an invitation to the reader to explore the authors' lived experiences as occupiers who designed a safe brave space. We invite the reader, particularly those who are also observers of safe brave spaces, to join us in protecting these valuable spaces.

The shift in undergraduate student demographic composition, particularly for the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, has been coupled with an ever increasing need for faculty to be more culturally aware and responsive. Traditionally, higher education has relied on the professional development programs of disciplinary societies and associations to meet such needs. However, designing professional development for STEM faculty in ways that awaken awarenesses about racial differences and their impact on academic success requires more than the conventional faculty development offerings, which, more often than not, only give cursory nods to difference or limit programming to “cookbook” protocols of do's and don'ts. Indeed, today's STEM faculty professional development must be met with more sophisticated paradigms that foreground personal reflection and development. Safe brave spaces represent an ideal mechanism for supporting not only personal reflection but also the grappling with and letting go of the destructive values and beliefs that negatively impact undergraduate STEM student success. The chapter offers the reader a view into our perspective as conveners of safe brave professional development spaces. In it, we also share the words of a safe brave space occupier, demonstrating how the power of reflection can influence the value of safe brave spaces. As a result, the reader is left with a different lens through which STEM faculty professional development programs can and should be considered – whether it is who is in them, who is missing from them, or what is required to facilitate more productive interactions within them. Admittedly, there is more work yet to be done. Understanding that this work requires safety and bravery is a necessary next step.

This chapter examines the continued presence of sexualized violence against girls and gender nonconforming/lesbian, gay, trans* or inter* students in education. It discusses endeavours to establish ‘true’ safe spaces as preconditions for and effects of efforts to prevent or minimize sexualized violence. It shows thereby that debates on safe or even brave spaces provide further stimuli for the topic of sexualized violence and reveals the significance of the interaction of sexism, heteronormativity and hatred of people who are perceived as ‘different’. Counselling centres, survivor support associations, schools, and child and youth welfare organizations are now developing concepts to protect all target groups. However, there is still a lack of sufficient and well-conceived offers, especially for lesbians, gays and trans*. Strengthening the agency of those affected could be a promising starting point.

This chapter introduces the purpose and structure of this edited volume, including why safe spaces are needed in educational settings, how to think about what makes a space safe for different individuals or groups, and aspects to consider in creating and maintaining safe spaces. It describes the two broad sections, the first of which comprises chapters that introduce the problem, context, need for safe spaces (Chapter 2), the broad conceptual frames supporting them (Chapter 3), and detail and deconstruct examples of various safe spaces created in diverse educational settings (Chapter 4). Chapters in Section II include aspects of the conceptual foundations and details about the purpose, development, and implementation processes, and outcomes of various efforts to create and/or maintain a safe space for education.

Through scholarly personal narrative (Nash, 2004), this chapter outlines a multifaceted approach to creating safer brave spaces for queer and trans students within a predominantly Hispanic-serving, public research university with a mainly commuter student population in South Florida. All spaces require courageous acts of authenticity on the part of its occupants. Thus, the creation of safer brave spaces is acknowledged as a practice since safety is an ideal to be worked toward especially for those with less power and privilege, such as queer and trans people as opposed to straight and cisgender people. Experiences of heterosexism and cisgenderism are positively associated with psychological distress among queer and trans college students (Goldberg, Kuvalanka, & Black, 2019; Sue, 2010; Woodford, Kulick, Sinco, & Hong, 2014). Research suggests empowerment and the acquisition of power is a positive coping mechanism for resisting and overcoming experiences of heterosexism and cisgenderism (Mizock, 2017; Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, & Wong, 2014; Todoroff, 1995). Administrators are called upon to mindfully create spaces that empower queer and trans students. Quick tips throughout the chapter highlight that queer and trans students should be given opportunities to determine their own risks, choose their own mentors, create their own spaces, have their own voices centered, realize their own solutions, fail and learn from setbacks, and deconstruct systems of power. At the University level, administrators should work to educate and change policies that further support students' opportunities to courageously exist and persist authentically in spaces across the university as a whole and not just in designated centers.

This study is a meditation of the master's program “Globalization and Education” at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. It contributes an evaluation of the function of bravery in academic discourse. Safety and bravery refer to the complexity of educational space in higher education: to interactions in the classroom, the institutional context, and social imaginaries of Western modernity. While civility and respect are essential, and potential causes of pain should be acknowledged, the control of conduct can never fully guarantee safety. The chapter proposes replacing the classroom with a research community. It would no longer excessively focus on the relationship between a teacher and students, but the subject matter. The commitment becomes more symmetrical, and, therefore, a research community creates a brave space.

The purpose of this paper is to explore an alternative strategy to decrease disadvantaging gender binarism and cis-normativity in an organisational context by including trans* and gender diverse (TGD) employee voices through the development of a safe and brave space (S&BS).

This conceptual paper discusses the potential construction of S&BS and the possible integration as well as requirements of it into an organisational environment. The elaborated theoretical underpinning of a queering approach is used to build the foundation and the design of a potential successful implementation.

Current diversity management strategies are repeatedly reported as inadequate to tackle the issue of gender binarism and cis-normativity or even to reinforce them via various strategies. The integration of S&BS could offer cis as well as TGD people an opportunity to participate in the development of organisational structures and managerial decision-making within a democratic and empowering environment. Managing gender with the support of TGD employees may increase inclusion, equity and diversity of gender in management and organisation.

Although much of the management and organisational literature accepts the concept of gender binarism and cis-normativity, the integration of TGD employee voices through the adaptation of S&BS from an educational context into organisational management has not been explored.

This chapter is based on qualitative data collected in the course of a research project characterized by the use of a range of participatory methods with the purpose of providing a creative space for migrant, refugee and asylum-seeking women discussing familial practices. The ambiguities of the term ‘safe space’ are explored in light of the fact space cannot be entirely safe as is imbued with power relations including racialized and gendered hierarchies, among others. The fieldwork for the project discussed here revealed potential uncertainties and pitfalls in the creation of a space which is safe enough to share personal experiences in the context of a research project.

This chapter provides foundations of differentiating the sophisticated and various theoretical approaches towards safe spaces demonstrated in this book. For the purpose of framing the examples provided in this collection, we offer three broad ways of thinking about safe spaces: safe learning spaces as separate, counterhegemonic, or third spaces; safe learning spaces of difference, sameness, and intersecting identities; and deliberative and democratic learning spaces. It needs to be noted, however, that these are not mutually exclusive but different aspects to consider and that they each operate within and across, and are therefore influenced by, the five levels of inequity discussed in Chapter 2. That said, not all levels of inequity are necessarily addressed by any given space, regardless of the frame used to interpret it. This discussion respects the multiple paradoxes in education, especially the one of pluralism and sameness, offering approaches to modes and learning settings of inclusion and exclusion and how they create different, yet “safe,” spaces.